Last Thursday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testified publicly and under oath before the Sept. 11 commission. Critics weighed in with various viewpoints, but one issue from her testimony has clearly stolen the spotlight, and — Aug. 6 Presidential Daily Briefing “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.”

This ominous-sounding brief, declassified and made public April 10, has been overblown by the media and drawn attention away from more important issues surrounding Rice’s testimony. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefly described the brief in a May 17, 2002, press briefing, although he gave an incorrect title for it. The correct title and basic message were released two days later in a Washington Post article by Bob Woodward and Dan Eggen. The Aug. 6 brief is not new information, nor is it particularly compelling. With old and uncorroborated intelligence, it uses vague wording and tells of ongoing investigations. Case closed.

Focusing on the Aug. 6 brief distracts from other statements Rice made, some of which are troubling and just plain dishonest.

In one laughable claim, Rice asserts that before the Sept. 11 attacks, “President Bush understood the threat [of al-Qaida].” If he truly understood the threat we faced, would he have spent August 2001 hanging out at his ranch in Crawford, Texas? Either Condoleezza Rice lied to the Sept. 11 commission, or President Bush truly understood the threat but didn’t care. Here’s what Bush had to say: “No mulligans, except on the first tee. That’s just to loosen up. You see, most people get to hit practice balls, but as you know, I’m walking out here, I’m fixing to go hit. Tight back, older guy — I hit the speed limit on July 6.” Righto. That was at Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, Texas Aug. 7, 2001 — the summer Rice described the government as being “at battle stations” to confront the Al Qaeda threat and … water hazards on the back nine.

In the entire month of August, Bush only publicly mentioned terrorism in the context of Israel and Palestine. His main issues concerned stem-cell research, missile defense and the economy — a far cry from Rice’s tough-sounding claim. Why did she lie?

The very first question posed to Rice concerned the use of airplanes as weapons, and whether she had any exposure to such information — either through intelligence agencies, discussions or “anything else.” She answered in the negative — in other words saying “no” — despite having attended the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy, where just such a warning was given.

At the July 2001 summit, which Rice attended with President Bush, Italian officials were warned of a possible bin Laden plot to crash a hijacked airplane into the summit. In response, Italy closed airspace and readied its anti-aircraft weaponry.

Although U.S. counterterrorism officials judged the warning questionable, it no doubt raised the idea of using airplanes as missiles. Why, then, did Condoleezza Rice assert in May 2002 that she didn’t “think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center … that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” What was her motive for lying?

Most shameful of all is Rice’s use of linguistic chicanery to apologize without admitting guilt and expect forgiveness by stating, “Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late.”

She indirectly downplayed her own apathy while seeking to absolve herself of liability by stating that “several administrations of both parties” responded insufficiently. This is in stark contrast to Richard Clarke’s earlier testimony in which he told families of Sept. 11 victims that “We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”

Such humility is a welcome expression in a time otherwise marked by arrogance and deceit. I urge all people to re-read Rice’s testimony in full knowledge of these facts, and especially to read through her linguistic dishonesty. Condoleezza Rice is without a doubt a brilliant woman, and her cleverly-worded answers reflect that.

However, Americans deserve much more, — all we want is the truth.